In summation does avoiding life really eliminate suffering and facilitation of liberation?

Generally, speaking, women who have abortions are not that concerned with liberation, in this life or any other. One of the problems here is that we keep framing this issue through Buddhist abstractions such as "liberation," which are completely meaningless to the 93 percent of the world population who are not Buddhists.

This thread, and as far as I know, this forum isn’t about 93% of the world. It’s specifically about the Buddhist view of the topic.

Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

In summation does avoiding life really eliminate suffering and facilitation of liberation?

Generally, speaking, women who have abortions are not that concerned with liberation, in this life or any other. One of the problems here is that we keep framing this issue through Buddhist abstractions such as "liberation," which are completely meaningless to the 93 percent of the world population who are not Buddhists.

This thread, and as far as I know, this forum isn’t about 93% of the world. It’s specifically about the Buddhist view of the topic.

As HH Dalai Lama pointed out, religious ethics are largely incapable of dealing with issues such as this in this time period.

So at this time, secular ethics are more important than what Buddhists might believe, and every Buddhist who has their head squarely on their shoulders should just accept this.

In an Introduction to Buddhist Ethics by Peter Harvey there is a really interesting chapter on abortion. And basically the jist of it is that although textually there might be some opposition to abortion, the practice is in buddhist countries is to allow it as more humane. Why? Because it saves the lives of women. Not only because it makes it possible for them to have it done by professional, but also because who knows what leads them to such a decision. They might have been raped, they might be too poor to take care of the baby, they might know that orphanages are horrible in that country. There are many reasons.

It might be tempting to say it is this or that, but especially in this case the reality is... it depends on the case. Yes, probably it would be better if abortions were minimal and only truly the last resort. But then again, their body, their choice.

“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Generally, speaking, women who have abortions are not that concerned with liberation, in this life or any other. One of the problems here is that we keep framing this issue through Buddhist abstractions such as "liberation," which are completely meaningless to the 93 percent of the world population who are not Buddhists.

This thread, and as far as I know, this forum isn’t about 93% of the world. It’s specifically about the Buddhist view of the topic.

As HH Dalai Lama pointed out, religious ethics are largely incapable of dealing with issues such as this in this time period.

So at this time, secular ethics are more important than what Buddhists might believe, and every Buddhist who has their head squarely on their shoulders should just accept this.

While that certainly may be true, this is specifically a buddhist forum. You can make arguments based on anything, anywhere. You can’t really argue that framing things in terms of Buddhist “abstraction” is a problem in a Buddhist forum which itself is probably meaningless to even more than 99.93% of the rest of the world.

Besides, if you want to talk about liberation in the non-Buddhist context, then I’d argue that most women who want the right to choose a safe abortion are very much interested in liberation, as the term is used generally.

Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

This thread, and as far as I know, this forum isn’t about 93% of the world. It’s specifically about the Buddhist view of the topic.

As HH Dalai Lama pointed out, religious ethics are largely incapable of dealing with issues such as this in this time period.

So at this time, secular ethics are more important than what Buddhists might believe, and every Buddhist who has their head squarely on their shoulders should just accept this.

While that certainly may be true, this is specifically a buddhist forum.

Thanks for restating the obvious.

You can’t really argue that framing things in terms of Buddhist “abstraction” is a problem in a Buddhist forum which itself is probably meaningless to even more than 99.93% of the rest of the world.

Yes, I can, and I have.

Besides, if you want to talk about liberation in the non-Buddhist context, then I’d argue that most women who want the right to choose a safe abortion are very much interested in liberation, as the term is used generally.

You mean they have identified and wish to be free of the three afflictions which cause rebirth in samsara? Doubtful.

Of course we must then accept suffering and keep from creating/perpetuating it. I don't doubt our natural inclination is to try to remove suffering from the equation.

In this regards avoiding a life a suffering and potential liberation is life giving a man a fish where in accepting a life of suffering for the potential of liberation is teaching a man to fish.

In summation does avoiding life really eliminate suffering and facilitation of liberation?

You are still assuming that the embryo will grow to become a fully functional human being, something which, statistically, is not the case at all.

Also you are assuming that I believe that terminating a pregnancy will end suffering. That is not what I am saying. I imagine there are some rare instances when a woman chooses to go through with an unwanted pregnancy and it leads to some measure of happiness for all involved. But, generally speaking, unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children and unhappy mothers. This is evidenced by how many women travel to states and countries where they can undergo legal medical procedures; or by the fact that so many women (approximately 20,000,000 annually) choose life threatening unsafe procedures in countries where they cannot access medical facilities. 97% of unsafe abortions are made in developing countries so it seems there is an socioeconomic/class factor involved too. Unsafe abortions lead to millions of injuries (of women) annually and it is estimated that unsafe abortions lead to 3,700-7,000 deaths a year globally (approximately 13% of all maternal deaths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Unsafe_abortion

But, as I stated in another thread, this is not a pro/anti-abortion debate (for me) this is a pro/anti-CHOICE debate.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

The following two posts were moved from the discussion of debate topics in the Moderation Discussion forum: viewtopic.php?f=128&t=33237 The reason I moved them was because they address the issue of abortion rather than meet the criteria of meta discussion about this topic. Meta discussions are generally not allowed at DW, except in the Moderation Discussion forum.
-QQ

For years I've doubted that "rights" have any "right" to existence. They are a bit like "self": the harder you look for them, or at them, the less substance they seem to have.

"Abortion" is a word which many people find harsh or ugly, but it unambiguously labels a process which many people find harsh or ugly, so that's fair enough. I can't think of another word which is as clear.
"The great debate on terminating pregnancy" might work but is a euphemism, an evasion - and people still have to talk about abortion.

Kim

"Abortion" is a bit like "self" too. Seems to me your choice, and the reasoning behind it, is also based on personal preferences regarding terms and their meanings. The only reason "abortion" is considered harsh or ugly, is because that is the way people define it, when in fact it is just a form of surgery. No harsher or uglier than removing a tumor.

As for "rights". All relative phenomena are empty of essential existence. Laboring 12 hours in a coal pit and working until you die are also empty of essence, but it does not make them the same as the right to an eight hour day and a pension.

So... It seems to me you are ignoring relative truth, in preference to ultimate truth, only when it suits your agenda.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

...As for "rights". All relative phenomena are empty of essential existence. Laboring 12 hours in a coal pit and working until you die are also empty of essence, but it does not make them the same as the right to an eight hour day and a pension.

So... It seems to me you are ignoring relative truth, in preference to ultimate truth, only when it suits your agenda.

Huh?
Did I say no-one had the "the right to an eight hour day and a pension", or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or the right to go around shooting people, or the right to anything else? Where's my "agenda"??

If I were to be allowed to continue with my own thoughts about "rights" I would be trying to articulate, however fumblingly, the idea that what we normally call "rights" are social constructs which depend almost completely on the society in which they are held to exist.
There have been, for instance, a "right" to own slaves, or a "right" to kill your wife, in many societies in the past and in some societies in the present. They are not good "rights" at all, of course, and I'm very happy that they are no longer considered "rights" in most parts of the world. Equally, there have been "rights" to freedom of religion and to freedom of speech - in some times and places - and I'm happy that they exist where they do.
But I would say that the really peculiar thing about them in either case is that, wherever they are held and whatever they are, they are not generally considered to be anything other than unquestionable moral law.
If they can't be questioned, they can't be changed.
And I would like them to be open to discussion. ["I would like" is really shorthand for a long argument about social progress, morality, compassion, etc., just as "I am happy" is shorthand for "I believe that it's a Good Thing".]

So, to get back to the topic (which was, of course, how to describe the subject of the debate) : "a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" begs the question (in this sense "In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) by claiming she does have such a right, and therefore voids the discussion. "Abortion", on the other hand, is a relatively value-free, factual, term. "Termination of pregnancy" is another but, as I said, not really any better.

Just to be really, really, clear: I was not, and am not, trying to articulate my own position in the abortion debate. I was talking about how best to conduct the discussion. That's all.

If I were to be allowed to continue with my own thoughts about "rights" I would be trying to articulate, however fumblingly, the idea that what we normally call "rights" are social constructs which depend almost completely on the society in which they are held to exist.

Not that I particularly agree with Jeremy Bentham's project, but he made some good points about rights:

"Right…is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters."

Bentham was objecting to the Rights of Man declared in France during the French Revolution.

I generally subscribe to the views of Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes argued we have a right to do anything we are able to do. He pointed out, however, that when everyone exercises their rights like that, we end up in, "continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So we surrender some of our right to the sovereign, in particular, our right to inflict violence, who then, ideally, wields that right for everyone's benefit. That is the social contract. Rights are then expressions of what we think are the rules for everyone's benefit.

So the right to have an abortion is something we in the West have generally agreed is a rule for everyone's benefit. "Everyone" is the key question here, and hence at least under American jurisprudence, the acrobatics to determine when a fetus becomes a person who gets to be in the category, "everyone."

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

And of course they are not guaranteed (but we do have organisations who's role it is to protect them).

And of course, as a Buddhist, I understand that ultimately they are empty of essence. So let's not start that silly argument again.

But just because a dictator, for example, may not consider these rights inalienable, does not mean that they are not. Depriving somebody of food and water, does not mean there is no food and water.

So here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as spelled out by the UN. Take note of article 30.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

I believe that the rights rubric is a useful construct. It has historically functioned to temper the power of the state and articulate the desired dynamics between individual and state. Calling them universal or whatever absolute language doesn't make them so. It's good rhetoric, though. The rights articulated in the various declarations of rights are wonderful aspirations. I support them.

For practical reasons I believe, as far as the state's power is concerned, abortion should be treated as a medical issue. That doesn't mean I personally see it as an exclusively medical issue. My personal views are outside the scope of the state's business and only have bearing on others in so far as their business is my business..

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Well now the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the face of everybody reading the thread, so they cannot claim ignorance.

For practical reasons I believe, as far as the state's power is concerned, abortion should be treated as a medical issue.

So it comes under Article 25. Seems that even with copy-pasta(sic) people don't get the message.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Well now the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the face of everybody reading the thread, so they cannot claim ignorance.

For practical reasons I believe, as far as the state's power is concerned, abortion should be treated as a medical issue.

So it comes under Article 25. Seems that even with copy-pasta(sic) people don't get the message.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

The right for a child to be born with equal social protection regardless of conditions is stated but not the explicit right to abort. It does make me wonder why you put such emphasis on abortion rights instead of women's rights. I state this for several reasons one of which is not all women choose to abort because they have no desire for a child but rather lack the societal resources to raise the child humanely. Not that abortion should be removed as a viable choice but it denies the other aspect which is societal stigma against non traditional families.

No. That is not what it says. Remove the tinted glasses and read it again.

It does make me wonder why you put such emphasis on abortion rights instead of women's rights.

I don't. You are the one constantly trying to force the discussion in that direction. Go back and read what I have said, very clearly, every time. I even put forward the idea of changing the name of the thread.

I state this for several reasons one of which is not all women choose to abort because they have no desire for a child but rather lack the societal resources to raise the child humanely.

Chicken-egg.

Not that abortion should be removed as a viable choice but it denies the other aspect which is societal stigma against non traditional families.

No, it does not. You just want to frame it in this manner.

Most women's rights activists are also anti-patriarchal. The "traditional" nuclear family is a patriarchal construct.

Last edited by Grigoris on Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

As someone who believes in reincarnation, all I can say is that the next time I am a fetus I hope that doesn’t happen to me. And since I believe in karma I don’t want to create the seeds for it to happen.

Anyone here think it would be okay if it happens to them?

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)